Purpose Because there is mixed evidence regarding Big N fee premiums across countries, the purpose of this paper is to re-examine the phenomenon of audit price differentiations in the market for auditing services in Thailand. Although Hay et al. (2006) and Hay (2013) reviewed over 80 audit fee papers from 20 countries over 25 years, 13 of which were based in emerging economies, the understanding of the market for auditing services in Thailand remains limited. Because the Thai auditing market is also classified as a segmented market – i.e., a market that is less competitive for large-client firms and more competitive for small-client firms – this study tests audit price competition in an emerging audit market using Thailand as an example. Design/methodology/approach The traditional audit fee model is used to estimate audit fee premiums for a sample of over 300 non-financial companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in 2011. Findings Although the market for auditing services in Thailand is consistent with that described in Ferguson et al. (2013) – in which Big N audit firms dominate only the large-client segment – the results show that Big N auditors charge higher audit fees and earn higher fee premiums compared with non-Big N auditors in both the small- and large-client segments of the audit market. Research limitations/implications The evidence from this study reveals the existence of Big N fee premiums across market segmentations. Audit price differentials between Big N and non-Big N firms in both small- and large-client market segments might concern regulators regarding competition in the audit market with respect to whether the Big N firms are charging uncompetitive audit fees. These findings also imply that audit pricing varies across countries and the Big N price deferential is typically larger in emerging markets than in more developed audit markets and that it might be inadequate to study single-country audit pricing. However, the question whether the Big N fee premium results from Big N product differentiation is not directly investigated in this study. Originality/value Because earlier studies focusing on audit fee premiums have been conducted using data from the USA and Australia, the findings add to the limited evidence regarding audit fee premiums in an emerging country such as Thailand.
PurposeThis study examines the effects of key audit matter (KAM) disclosures in auditors' reports on auditor liability in cases of fraud and error misstatements using evaluators with audit experience.Design/methodology/approachThe experiment is conducted using 174 professional auditors as participants.FindingsThe participating auditors assess higher auditor liability when misstatements are related to errors rather than when they are related to fraud. In addition, the results also demonstrate that KAM disclosures reduce auditor liability only in cases of fraud and not in cases of errors. Together, the results support the view that KAM reduces the negative affective reactions of evaluators, which in turn, reduce the assessed auditor liability.Research limitations/implicationsThis study did not analyze the setting in which auditors who act as peer evaluators had an opportunity to discuss the case among their peers, which may have affected their judgments.Practical implicationsThe results of KAM disclosures on auditor liability in cases of error and fraud misstatements inform auditors that, different from the auditors' concern that disclosing KAM may increase auditors' legal risk, it tends to decrease or at least have no impact on the liability judgment.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the accounting literature by adding findings on another aspect of KAM in different audit settings, particularly, in the Thai legal environment with different types of undetected misstatements. The current conflicting results on how KAM disclosures affect auditor liability warrant further investigation of this issue in other audit contexts in different countries.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the demand for high quality auditors and the effect of their brand names on a security's pricing at the time of its initial public offering. Because the Thai capital market is highly regulated, especially in terms of auditor selection (i.e. the Thai Security and Exchange Commission provides a list of individually qualified auditors and underwriting firms that the issuing firms have to choose from), it is therefore of interest to look at the demand for reputable audit firms and the importance of reputation capital in the signaling mechanism. Design/methodology/approach -Data were collected from 100 issuing firms that went public between 2003 and 2008. Logistic regression and OLS regression were applied to test the relationship between the use of reputable audit firms and the level of underpricing of new issues. The demand for reputable audit firms in this highly regulated capital market is also examined. Findings -The results suggest that only the newer large firms will select the higher quality audit firms, namely the Big Four. Furthermore, the role of the audit firms in the signaling model is also examined. The findings illustrate that new security issues are underpriced less when they engage Big Four audit firms, but there is no significant association between the underwriter and the level of underpricing. However, this relationship becomes more negative when Big Four audit firms and prestigious underwriters are both employed.Research limitations/implications -The findings confirm the auditor's significant signaling role. Therefore, when the choice of an auditor and underwriter is restricted, the issuing firms should consider hiring reputable audit firms, rather than prestigious underwriters, at the time of the initial public offering. Potential investors could also use the interpretations of these findings to make rational investment decisions. Originality/value -The paper focuses on the new issues market in Thailand, which is inefficient and overly regulated.
Recent research has found that the effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information on investment decisions will be eliminated when it is explicitly assessed, especially when CSR is not related to core business activities (immaterial CSR issues). We thus extend prior research by investigating whether (1) CSR assurance increases investors' willingness to invest when CSR performance is material or immaterial to core business activities and (2) CSR assurance moderates the effect of explicit assessment and CSR information on investment judgment. A 2 × 2 × 2 between‐subjects experiment was conducted using 213 professional investors. Overall, our results suggest that investors' willingness to invest is greater when positive CSR is verified by third‐party assurance in both material and immaterial CSR conditions. In addition, CSR assurance has a significant effect on investment judgment when immaterial CSR performance is explicitly assessed. As the affect‐as‐information heuristic (i.e., heuristic processing) is likely to be removed when CSR performance is explicitly assessed, the results of this study indicate that the affect heuristic is only eliminated when immaterial CSR is not assured, suggesting that CSR assurance moderates the effect of explicit assessment on investment judgment. Consistent with systematic‐heuristic theory, our results thus confirm that the systematic processing of CSR information does not necessarily attenuate affect heuristic processing; rather, these two processing modes can co‐occur. Our results concerning the impact of CSR assurance on positive CSR information inform firms that third‐party assurance affects investment judgment, especially for parties who consider purchasing these services, for example, managers or audit committee members. As CSR assurance is not mandatory, the audit profession could also be interested in our findings, as they might encourage firms to assure their nonfinancial information to enhance disclosure credibility. The inconclusive results on how CSR assurance affects investment judgment warrant further investigation of this issue in other reporting environments in different countries. Nevertheless, our findings contribute to the CSR literature by identifying novel aspects of the value of CSR assurance in different contexts, that is, the moderating role of CSR assurance and the explicit assessment of CSR information during investment decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.